PRITHVI (MINOR) versus MAM RAJ AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 530 · Decided: 19-02-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PRITHVI (MINOR) 
v. 
MAM RAJ AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 19, 2004 
B 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B. N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Article 136-Appeal against acquittal-Scope for 
interference-Held, acquittal can be interfered with when the judgment of the 
C High Court is perverse. 
D 
Criminal Trial-Statement of witness-Delay in recording-Effect of-
Witness seriously injured in the occurrence-Not in a position to give 
statement-Statement recorded after his recovery-Held, delay is not fatal-
Indian Penal Code-Section 302. 
Evidence-Appreciation of-Seriously injured child witness-
Mathematical precision cannot be expected in his evidence-Indian Penal 
Code-section 302. 
Investigation-Defects in-Effect of-Held, cannot by itself be a ground 
E for acquittal of accused if the evidence is believable-lndian Penal Code-
Section 302. 
'H' had no issue and desired to bring up the son of his brother but 
later on threw him out of his house. Thereafter, 'H' allowed his nephew 
F 'P' and his niece 'L' to live with him and wanted to give his land to 'P' in 
preference to the son of his brother. The accused persons, who we(e close 
relatives of the brother of 'H' and were aggrieved by the decision of 'H', 
.._ 
came to the house of 'H' in the dead of night armed with lath is. They gave 
lathi blows to 'P', 'H', 'L' and wife of 'H'. Three persons died. 'P', who 
G was a minor, was given lathi blows over his head and eyes. 
On hearing the cries of 'P', the neighbours woke up and saw the 
accused persons running away. They informed the police. When the 
Investigating Officer came to the house of 'H', he found that 'P' was semi, 
conscious and was making incoherent and incomprehensible sounds. 'P' 
H was sent to the hospital for treatment and his statement was not recorded 
530 
PRITHVI (MINOR) v. MAM RAJ 
531 
at that time. The attending doctor too was of the opinion that 'P' was not A 
in a position to give his statement. Statement of 'P' was recorded after 
his discharge from the hospital. 
The Trial Court convicted the accused persons under Section 302 
and other sections of IPC and sentenced them to death and life. On appeal, B 
the High Court disbelieved the evidence produced by the prosecution. One 
of the grounds given weightage to by the High Court was that the 
statement of 'P' was recorded after substantial delay. The High Court 
acquitted the accused persons. 
'P' and the State filed appeal before the Court. 
Allowing the appeals and converting death sentence into life 
imprisonment, the Court 
c 
HELD: 1.1 The normal rule is that this Court does not interfere 
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India in an appeal against acquittal 
unless the judgement of the High Court is perverse. [536-F) 
D 
State of UP. v. Gokaran and Ors., (1984) Supp. SCC 482, referred 
to. 
1.2. The reasoning of the High Court for acquitting the accused is 
wholly perverse. The evidence on record gives only one view, which is not E 
ambivalent or capable of an alternate appreciation consistent with the 
innocence of the accused. [541-E, CJ 
Harijana Thirupala and Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A. P., 
Hyderabad, (2002) 6 SCC 470 and Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 
[1973] 2 sec 808, cited. 
F 
2. Unless one went about looking for· the lacunae, there was no 
justification to summarily brush aside the evidence of 'P'. That 'P' was 
an eye-witness is indubitable; that he was an injured witness who sustained 
serious injuries gives credence to the prosecution story and that he was 
at the spot when the offence was committed. His evidence is fully G 
corroborated by the evidence of the doctor, the Investigating Officer and 
at least half a dozen of neighbours who unanimously said that 'P' was 
unable to speak, was making incomprehensible sounds and was moaning. 
to. 
(537-A, 538-D) 
Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, (21st Edn.), referred H 
532 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 2 S.C.R. 
.. ........ 
A 
3.1. Delay in recording the statement of witness can occur due to 
various reasons and can have several explanations. It is for the court to 
assess the explanation and, if satisfied, accept the statement of the witness. 
There is no absolute proposition of law that delay per se destroys the 
. 
,, 
credibility of witnesses' statements. (541-A-B) 
B 
Balakrushna Swain v. State ofOrissa, AIR (1971) SC 804 and State of 
.........:-
Orissa v. Brahmananda Nanda, AIR (1976) SC 2488, cited. 
3.2. The delay in recording the sta
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.